But, those who somehow think guns can be taken out of the hands of bad guys, also don’t want gays — or anyone — to be able to defend themselves.
http://www.10news.com/news/craigslist-ad-threatens-orlando-style-massacre-in-san-diego-061416
10 News: Craigslist ad threatens Orlando-style massacre in San Diego
Comments 16
Craig,
I don’t think anyone, certainly not I, wants to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. What I want to do is limit the size of the magazines.
Do you think that any of us will have to defend ourselves against 30 or more attackers at the same time?
HQ, here is a story about a lady who emptied her entire magazine on an attacker.
https://behindthenewsisrael.wordpress.com/2015/12/24/i-emptied-the-magazine-into-him-he-kept-on-charging/
Also, there are hundreds of millions….maybe billions of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Rounding them up is impossible and turning the owners into felons is impractical.
We all agree that it’s the murderer’s fault. Let’s start there.
Michael,
Of course it’s the murderer’s fault. And Islamic terrorists are bad and they are a serious problem. No one disagrees with any of those points. However, that doesn’t mean that we need to make it easy for bad people to kill scores of people in a minute’s time.
Also, to be clear, I am not advocating rounding up any weapons that are currently in circulation nor am I asking to ban magazines that carry ten bullets. How about we start with magazines that hold thirty or more rounds and have not yet been manufactured. Maybe we can even get the gun manufacturers to do this voluntarily.
Most of these heinous crimes have been committed by a lone gunman. I would think that thirty rounds should be enough for a “good guy” to take out one , or even two, “bad guys.”
HQ, I so enjoyed this remark from you:
“Do you think that any of us will have to defend ourselves against 30 or more attackers at the same time?”
You’ve been watching (and believing) too many Hollywood movies. Indeed, I can’t think of one Hollywood movie that projects such terrific results.
Let’s see, thirty rounds, thirty bad guys. The math is simple. But the likelihood of such stunning accuracy (all incapacitating shots) — one shot per bad guy — is beyond Matt Damon’s best day’s results as Jason Bourne.
Indeed, to follow your logic, it would mean that if we were sending infantry against a foe that we outnumbered 2-1, we’d need to issue only one bullet to every other man. Simple math! DOD could save a bundle with your insight.
BTW, already anti-gun politicians are calling for limiting magazines to LESS than 10 rounds each. NY state tried to implement a 7 round magazine requirement, but chose not to enforce the law off after too many problems became apparent — including court rulings.
Others are demanding that weapons not have detachable magazines — that reloading would require manually putting each round into the gun (like a revolver or 19th century firearm). HQ’s “sensible reform” is the standard “one bite at a time” effort to effectively outlaw guns.
Yes Richard, it would be amazingly good shooting to stop 30 bad guys with 30 shots. It would also be amazingly bad shooting to miss one bad guy with the same thirty shots.
Hypocrisy,
Have you ever read about La Mesa PD shootouts?
HQ — And your point is . . . ??
Remember, it was YOU who asserted that one would need only 30 shots to take down 30 bad guys. Not me. Kindly defend your absurd assertion.
Richard,
“Remember, it was YOU who asserted that one would need only 30 shots to take down 30 bad guys.”
I think you need to learn how to read for comprehension. Here is my exact quote that followed my request to limit the magazines to 30 rounds:
“I would think that thirty rounds should be enough for a “good guy” to take out one , or even two, “bad guys.”
The comment you cited what not related to any particular size magazine. I was just making the point that there is generally not a plethora of attackers and that only the “bad guy” would actually carry a large capacity rifle in a public place.
Your apology is accepted.
You can not keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys no matter how many rules you enforce. I talked with an acquaintance who has a felony. She comes from a gang area. I asked her if any of the gang members she knows have guns. She says they all have guns, and the vast majority of them have been arrested and convicted. She went on to say that NONE of them bought their guns legally. I asked her if there was any way of keeping gang bangers from getting guns. She laughed and said no way. Criminals will ALWAYS be able to get guns.
The answer is MORE guns in the hands of good people so they can defend themselves from the terrorists and criminals.
Common sense isn’t it, Dan? I can’t understand why some want to disarm and make vulnerable other innocent, law-abiding citizens.
It’s simple Dan. Control. More precisely Government control. It’s another way to increase the power of Big Government over the public. Who cares if it hurts the public. To quote William Henry Vanderbilt; “The public be damned.”
Craig and The Marshall Plan: Spot on. The homosexuals understand now that the leftist government has used them to get more control and now wants to leave them at the mercy of Muslim terrorists.
I was wondering why there was no gun out cry back then on how an illegal could get a gun and shoot Kathryn Steinle.
Sigh.
HQ, dance and sing all you want. No apology coming from me. SHOULD be coming from you, but honesty was never your strong point, as we know.
Here’s your SALIENT quote decrying the ownership of a 30 round magazine: “Do you think that any of us will have to defend ourselves against 30 or more attackers at the same time?”
Any person reading this blog not blinded by your gun control mania would interpret that as saying that a single filled 30 round magazine is enough to protect us from 30 (well, 29) bad guys, incapacitating/killing them all.
Did you write that quote? Yes.
Have you rescinded or defended that quote? Nope.
Yet still you dangle, hanging from your own rope, kicking while twisting slowing in the wind. So be it. I wouldn’t have it any other way..
Dear folks, While I have no problem with responsible gun owners I do have problems with some of the stupid from your own party, like making it legal to carry in bars. Even in the glory days of the wild west guns were not allowed in bars and many towns had you check them in at the city limits. Perhaps the gun freaks would have more creds if they didn’t knee-jerk react to even the most common sense laws. Unfortunately there are some out there that are pissed-off they can’t have mini home nukes and anti-aircraft weapons. Most of the arguments against any gun control are really arguments against laws in general. If you outlaw rape, only the bad guys will rape so what’s the point of the law.